Yin (Migration)

[2021] AATA 4847

Yin (Migration) [2021] AATA 4847 (10 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Xiaotang Yin

CASE NUMBER:  2114326

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/6888333 PNJ

MEMBER:Steven Griffiths

DATE:10 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 10 November 2021 at 12:08pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa –prescribed fee has not been paid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, rr 4.10, 4.13

CASES
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364

Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 27 September 2021, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 October 2021. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.347(1) of the Act and r.4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, this application had to be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, as specified in s.347(1)(b) and r.4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under r.4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 18 October 2021. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. The Tribunal notes that the full required fee was not paid when the review application was lodged.

5. The Tribunal notes the applicant was advised on 20/10/21 that application was not valid as the required fee had not been paid, with the applicant invited to make comment by 3 November 2021.

6. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not made a submission. 

7. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Steven Griffiths
   Member